NDLI: The Chairman, State Bank of India and Vs. M. J. James

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Bank of Cochin Service Code Violation of – Disciplinary proceedings a
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14 Referred Case 15
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Bank of Cochin Service Code: Clause 22(ix)(a) Chapter VIII – Violation of – Disciplinary proceedings against the Bank Manager for sanctioning advances in violation of the Head Office instructions causing financial loss to the Bank – Bank manager not allowed to be represented by an office bearer of an employees association of another organisation – Thereafter, Manager dismissed from service – Challenge to, after almost four and a half years – Both the Single Judge as also the Division Bench of the High Court quashed the disciplinary proceedings against the Bank Manager – On appeal, held: Observations and findings in the disciplinary proceedings on the aspect of irregularities regarding exceeding his authority in the grant of advances, clear and undisputed – Bank Manager was aware that his request to be represented by a representative of his own choice had been rejected – Even then he took time and decided not to file an appeal before the Board of Directors against the order of the inquiry officer rejecting his request – On the alibi, the Manager did not furnish any details or particulars of cases or instances and had refused to lead evidence – As per Clause 22(ix)(a), an officer can also be permitted to be defended by a representative of a registered union/association of ‘bank’ employees, which means an union/association of the employees of the Bank of Cochin and not of any or other banks – Provision does not stipulate that the employee requires permission from any authority or the inquiry officer for representation – Furthermore, the dismissal order remained unchallenged for more than four years – Though the Service Code does not stipulate any time period within which the appeal may be preferred but it should be within a reasonable time depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case – Right not exercised for a long time is non-existent – Doctrine of delay and laches as well as acquiescence are applied to non-suit such litigants – In the instant case, challenge to the order of dismissalfrom service by way of appeal was after four years, which was highly belated and beyond justifiable time – Court is to consciously examine whether a party has chosen to sit over the matter and has woken up to gain any advantage and benefit – These facets, when proven, must be factored and balanced, even when there is delay and laches on the part of the authorities – Studied silence of the respondent, was with an ulterior motive as he wanted to take benefit of the slipup though he had suffered dismissal – Thus, the judgment passed by the High Court is set aside and the order of dismissal is upheld – Service law. Clause 22(ix)(a), 2(e) – Object of definition clauses – Held: Is to avoid frequent repetition in describing the subject matter to which the word or expression is intended to apply – This is useful when the same word or expression is used more than once in the same enactment – Definition can be with the intent to attract a meaning already established by law; expand the meaning by adding a meaning; or narrow the meaning by exclusion – Repugnancy will arise when the definition meaning does not agree with the subject in the context – On facts, repugnancy not indicated and does not arise in the context of Clause 22(ix)(a) by mere absence of article ‘the’ in Clause 22(ix)(a) before the word ‘bank’. Inquiry: Domestic inquiry – Choice of representation – Right of – Held: Right to be represented by a counsel or agent of one’s choice is not an absolute right but can be controlled or regulated by law, rules, or regulations – However, if the charge is of severe and complex nature, then the request to be represented through a counsel or agent should be considered – Said proposition flows from the entitlement of fair hearing, applicable in judicial as well as quasi-judicial decisions. ‘Acquiescence’ and ‘delay and laches’ – Distinction between – Held: Doctrine of acquiescence is an equitable doctrine which applies when a party having a right stands by and sees another dealing in a manner inconsistent with that right – Acquiescence virtually destroys the right of the person – However, both limitation and laches destroy the remedy but not the right – Laches like acquiescence is based upon equitable considerations, but laches unlike acquiescence imports even simple passivity – On facts, inactive acquiescence on the part of the Bank Manager can beinferred till the filing of the appeal, and not for the period post filing of the appeal – Nevertheless, this acquiescence being in the nature of estoppel bars the Bank Manager from claiming violation of the right of fair representation. Administrative law: Statutory authority – Non-performance of duty – Defence of delay and laches – Held: When the statutory authority does not perform its duty within a reasonable time, the same cannot be justified by taking the plea that the person deprived of his rights has not approached the appropriate forum for relief – Statutory authority cannot take the defence of laches and delay.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna
Neutral Citation	2021 INSC 732
Petitioner	The Chairman, State Bank Of India And
Respondent	M. J. James
SCR	[2021] 7 S.C.R. 373
Judgement Date	2021-11-16
Case Number	8223

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

The Chairman, State Bank of India and Vs. M. J. James

Please Log-in to view this content

Chairman, Lic of India & Ors. Vs. A. Masilamani

State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Srinath Gupta and Anr .

State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Neelamnag

Chairman, Ganga Yamuna Gramin Bank & Ors. Vs. Devi Sahai

Air India Ltd. Vs. M. Yogeshwar Raj

Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs. M. B. Patnaik & Ors.

State Bank of India and Anr. Vs. Bela Bagchi and Ors.

M. N. Dasanna Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

The Chairman, State Bank of India and Vs. M. J. James

The Chairman, State Bank of India and Vs. M. J. James

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Chairman, Lic of India & Ors. Vs. A. Masilamani

State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Srinath Gupta and Anr .

State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Neelamnag

Chairman, Ganga Yamuna Gramin Bank & Ors. Vs. Devi Sahai

Air India Ltd. Vs. M. Yogeshwar Raj

Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs. M. B. Patnaik & Ors.

State Bank of India and Anr. Vs. Bela Bagchi and Ors.

M. N. Dasanna Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

The Chairman, State Bank of India and Vs. M. J. James